Immigration Law Must Change

[August1991]

I start this thread with a genuine desire to see what posters think. The question has arisen on other threads in the context of Canada's security. Posters have suggested, IMV, crazy, racist, unconstitutionally feasible changes to Canadian immigration law. I happen to think many of the ideas would accomplish nothing but then, what do I know.

Should Canadian citizens, living here now, accept anyone into this country? And if we don't, who should we accept? How should we decide? The MSM refuses to deal with this issue openly yet many Canadians (French/English) talk about it à vive voix.

For example, there's Parizeau's comment on a night in 1995 and an outsider journalist reporting on suburban English-Canada:

Comment les jeunes perçoivent-ils les musulmans au lendemain du battage médiatique entourant les attentats planifiés? La Presse est allée dans les écoles de Mississauga, d'où provenaient six des 17 suspects arrêtés vendredi dernier, pour leur poser la question. Les ados rencontrés ont des opinions différentes, mais le plus étonnant est sans doute qu'ils ne les expriment jamais ouvertement parce qu'aucun professeur n'aborde la question, et que les différents groupes ethniques de l'école sont divisés...

La Presse

Let's discuss this. Here. Newspapers, radio, TV, the CBC can't deal with this. It's too non-PC. No other English-Canadian forum can deal with this issue because they are too slanted - either posters will inundate a thread with racism or posters will be banned.

MLW may be able to offer a forum of honest, open opinion in English. Let's try.

[Charles Anthony]

Just to summarize the article:

It starts by stating that the writer/reporter wanted to find out what the youngsters think about the recent arrests of the 17 terrorist students from their school.

Then, it says that the students rarely have the opportunity to voice their opinions because teachers order them never discuss the issues and never to speak to the press.

The writer presents observations of "arab" students keeping to themselves in the playground, speaking arabic and other kids avoiding them. Everybody calls their hangout Browntown. The writer also observes other ethnic cliques (blacks, asians and whites) but only Browntown:

- has its own name

- kids speak a foreign language

- kids dress differently

- 3 of them where arrested by the RCMP last week

The writer quotes Rashid (who refuses to give his last name) says that they almost exclusively speak arabic, the school administration forbids them to speak to journalists and many journalists tried to interview students over the past week. Most muslim or arabic students are the victims of jokes and slurs. People say "Here comes a terrorist!". Rashid doubts that they all mean it entirely.

Most muslim students are embarrassed by the arrest of 3 students last week but make a point of stating that those three students were different and out of touch with other muslims. The were learning the Koran and did not look at girls. The muslim students insists that they were bizarre compared to the other muslim students.

The writer poetically describes a group of "white" students hanging out normally in the playground. One of the students, Mark, says that Saad Khalid (graduated last year, arrested last week) started to grow a beard and were small round glasses to make him look approximately 35 years old. The students admit to making jokes about muslim students and that the arrests will likely make them continue.

At a nearby high school, the students share the opinions of the others. Jonathan is quoted as saying that muslim students are treated with more rights than the other students. They have their own separate prayer spot for Fridays. Whereas, last year a student had his Bible taken away.

Tarek Fatah, the chairman of the Canadian Muslim Congress states that it is normal for ethnic youngsters to be the butt end of jokes but he doubts that it will make the bitter or anti-social. He observes that every generation deals with it -- jews and even Quebeckers in the past -- when people are diferent, they attract slurs.

The most astonishing this is that the interview youngsters said that recent arrests were never mentioned in class even thought the headlines were everywhere around the world and that the suspects lived right here. "The only thing that the teachers said was to not speak to journalists," quoted a student. Fellow students nearby laugh at this. "The teachers never speak about muslims or of islam. It is as if they did not exist."

I am not ready to state what I think about the article yet.

I have already stated my opinion on how to modify immigration policy in a different thread.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear August1991,

I think that the world needs to move towards having no borders whatsoever. That being said, I would favour a policy of No immigration until that time.

Should Canadian citizens, living here now, accept anyone into this country?

Yes, but I would make the exception of repeat criminal offenders, and/or pending criminal charges (that are in line with our laws, not someone facing a beaheading for practicing homosexuality).

Posters have suggested, IMV, crazy, racist, unconstitutionally feasible changes to Canadian immigration law. I happen to think many of the ideas would accomplish nothing but then, what do I know.

I agree, a lot of what I have read would certainly fall under the category of 'flame posting'.

I sincerely hope that this thread becomes the only one to deal with 'immigration' notions.

[Argus]

I start this thread with a genuine desire to see what posters think. The question has arisen on other threads in the context of Canada's security. Posters have suggested, IMV, crazy, racist, unconstitutionally feasible changes to Canadian immigration law. I happen to think many of the ideas would accomplish nothing but then, what do I know..

Demographically speaking, we do not need anywhere near as many immigrants as we now accept. We are, realistically, a small nation, unless you count all that empty land where few if any immigrants have an interest in. We are a narrow strip of land along the US border, with the rest being largely vacation land, farmland, timberland, and wasteland.

Our refugee determination system is a mess, accepting tens of thousands of people at several times the rate of other nations, none of them screened for their likelihood to succeed as Canadian citizens.

I have already stated we should end immigration for at least 30 years to give the immigrants here a time to assimilate. With that in mind, no other changes to immigration are necessary.

Since that is likely not politically possible at the moment, we should cut back immigration to 100k per year, focussed strictly on immigrants likely to succeed in Canada with as little help and as little disruption to the county as possible. That mean immigrants which are as culturally similar to ours as possible, with the proper education and job skills to succeed. Right now that is not grandiose university degrees, btw, but bricklayers, carpenters, roofers, plumbers, plasterers, welders, etc. And they should all be required to demonstrate a capability in English before being accepted as immigrants.

The refugee determination system needs to be exempted from the constitution via the notwithstanding clause. We're spending billions on the endless appeals process, and paying their room and board in the meantime. Refugees who arrive without documents should be confined until their hearing, and they must be able to prove their identity and do better than telling a decent story (often a boiler plate story given them by their Canadian-funded lawyer).to prove they deserve refugee status. Furthermore, the government should reserve the right to send them back where they came from in the event that it determines that whatever circusmtances existed which placed them in danger are no longer in place. Refugees should not be automatically be granted citizenship. At the least, we should put back citizenship for ten years after acceptance as a refugee.

[Leafless]

Should Canadian citizens, living here now, accept anyone into this country? And if we don't, who should we accept? How should we decide?

As if Canadian citizen have a say in immigration policies.

This is nothing more IMO than to fulfill a Liberal legacy MULTICULTURALISM and I think there is more to 'excess immigration' than meets the eye , although this is not the thread to discuss that aspect.

To discuss the merits or pitfalls of immigration at this time does not really make any sense until the NEW Conservative government of this land leads the way and tells Canadians point blank if previous Liberal immigration numbers are fraudulent relating to the number and type of immigrants required in Canada.

For instance I cannot believe the bulk of Canada's immigration is required in the GTA while certain jobs throughout Canada go begging with the need of additional temporary workers to fill the demand.

Something is drastically wrong and the onus is on the Conservatives to level with Canadians.

[August1991]

I posted this elsewhere, but I'll move it here because this is (quickly and generally and open to argument) what I think now.

Our immigration law and regulations have undergone increasingly useless changes since 1976, and government bureaucrats have less and less control over the process. In a world where a plane ticket to cross the Atlantic costs a few hundred dollars, anybody can travel.

Moreover, it is almost impossible to refuse someone entry, and basically impossible to deport them.

It would take a federal government with nerves of steel to confront all of this. If Harper forms a majority government with a coalition of MPs outside of urban centres, even then, those rural MPs would have to have the courage to withstand despicable charges from the English-Canadian urban media.

Canada accepts immigrants now in three broad groups: family class, refugees, skilled workers.

First of all, any suggestion of limiting immigration just means refusing skilled workers. The family class and refugee groups are basically out of anyone's control. At most, the bureaucrats can delay the processing.

So, simple calls to "restrict immigration numbers" is no solution.

Instead, I think family should be restricted to spouse and kids under 18 - that's it. Family class should not include parents or anyone else. This breaks the cornerstone of the 1976 law (family reunification) but so what.

The whole refugee processing system has to thrown out. To do it right, it would probably take use of the notwithstanding clause. All refugees, without exception, must be processed abroad.

In addition, the appeals procedure must be revamped. In the case of family class, with a sponsor in Canada, not much can probably be done. But the current refugee appeal process is Kafkaesque.

I agree Argus that we should be more circumspect about importing a potential problem. I'd do away with the live-in nanny programme. It has been the source of so many, many problems. We can't simply refuse people because they are Muslim or Atheist or Left-Handed, nor would we want to. But it must be easier to refuse someone if there's a doubt.

I have never bought into this "we need immigrants to pay for all the retiring babyboomers". But there's something wonderful that Australia, Canada and the US are countries that welcome foreigners and give them citizenship.

Demographically speaking, we do not need anywhere near as many immigrants as we now accept. We are, realistically, a small nation, unless you count all that empty land where few if any immigrants have an interest in. We are a narrow strip of land along the US border, with the rest being largely vacation land, farmland, timberland, and wasteland.

Agreed. We don't "need" immigrants but we can accept them. When people talk about reducing numbers (we currently accept about 250,000 but then lose about 80,000 emigrants each year) I'd like to know which type of immigrant we'd cut. It usually means losing skilled immigrants.

Our refugee determination system is a mess, accepting tens of thousands of people at several times the rate of other nations, none of them screened for their likelihood to succeed as Canadian citizens.

Agreed. Now, then suggest a politically feasible and legal way to change it.

I have already stated we should end immigration for at least 30 years to give the immigrants here a time to assimilate. With that in mind, no other changes to immigration are necessary.

Unrealistic. If a government passed such a law, immigrants would go underground, and in the next election the government would lose power.

Since that is likely not politically possible at the moment, we should cut back immigration to 100k per year, focussed strictly on immigrants likely to succeed in Canada with as little help and as little disruption to the county as possible. That mean immigrants which are as culturally similar to ours as possible, with the proper education and job skills to succeed. Right now that is not grandiose university degrees, btw, but bricklayers, carpenters, roofers, plumbers, plasterers, welders, etc. And they should all be required to demonstrate a capability in English before being accepted as immigrants.

How do you write into law the phrase "culturally similar"? And 100k is about what we accept in spouses and kids.

The refugee determination system needs to be exempted from the constaitution via the notwithstanding clause. We're spending billions on the endless appeals process, and paying their room and board in the meantime. Refugees who arrive without documents should be confined until their hearing, and they must be able to prove their identity and do better than telling a decent story (often a boiler plate story given them by their Canadian-funded lawyer).to prove they deserve refugee status. Furthermore, the government should reserve the right to send them back where they came from in the event that it determines that whatever circusmtances existed which placed them in danger are no longer in place. Refugees should not be automatically be granted citizenship. At the least, we should put back citizenship for ten years after acceptance as a refugee.

Do you think Harper has the courage to invoke the notwithstanding class so that he can refuse the downtrodden, the oppressed a chance to be free?

[Leafless]

August1991

You wrote:

"Canada accepts immigrants now in three broad groups: family class, refugees, skilled workers.

First of all, any suggestion of limiting immigration just means refusing skilled workers. The family class and refugee groups are basically out of anyone's control. At most, the bureaucrats can delay the processing.

So, simple calls to "restrict immigration numbers" is no solution."

You are wrong putting the onus on 'skilled worker' when they represent 48.10% of total immigration.

And as a matter of fact skilled workers fall under the 'Economic Class' which includes skilled workers-48.10%, Buisness immigrants-9,764 or 4.14% and Live in Caregivers-4,292 or 1.82%.

Total Ecomomic Class Immigrants= 133,746 or 56.71%

Then you have Family Class- Spouses, parents, children and other immigrants=49,,514 or 21%.

Then you have Protected Persons which are Government assisted Refugee Immigrants=7,411 or 3.14%.

Then you have Privately Sponsered Refugee Immigrants=7,411 or 3.14%.

Then you have Refugees Landed in Canada Immigrants=15,901 or 6.74%

Then you have Humantarian and Compassionate/Public policy immigrants= 6,945 or 2.94%

Your emphasis on skilled immigrants is not reflective to the actual need. In other words many companies don't want to pay substantial wages for the skilled help thus the artificial requirement for skilled worker immigrants in many cases.

[August1991]

And as a matter of fact skilled workers fall under the 'Economic Class' which includes skilled workers-48.10%, Buisness immigrants-9,764 or 4.14% and Live in Caregivers-4,292 or 1.82%.

Total Ecomomic Class Immigrants= 133,746 or 56.71%

The stats you quote are misleading.

The skilled worker and business immigrant percentages include dependents of a person accepted based on skill or business experience. Live-in caregivers (although a small percentage) is the source of many, many problems - they are certainly not skilled.

I posted the following basic facts elsewhere:

In general, we take in around 200,000 immigrants per year. Of these, about half (100,000) are admitted in the category of skilled workers, about a third (70,000) as family class and the rest (30,000) as refugees. Be cautious however. The 100,000 in the skilled worker category include dependants (children, spouse) so in fact, we only accept about 30,000 skilled workers.

In addition, Canada loses about 70,000 every year through emigration (primarily to the US). Statcan data

Some basic statistics can be found here Citizenship Canada.

----

Leafless, can you possibly learn how to format your posts? Style does sometimes matter.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear August1991,

One wacky solution (which might find favour from 'conservatives') would be to let business decide immigration numbers. They could apply for workers of whatever types they needed, and Immigration Canada would simply fill the quotas. Mind you, their families would likely have to come along. However, I sense that this would not cover some issues that seem (or are made to seem) pertinent at this time. Would the 'religious/ideological' orientation of said workers make a difference?

Where would that leave 'refugees'? Would 'Canadian foreign policy' be expected to improve their lot where they lie so they didn't feel the need to emigrate?

[geoffrey]

We need to move a green card idea. No immigration for your family unless you have a job agreement with enough salary to support said family. Easy enough.

[Oddman]

The post raises interesting questions and honest concerns. And there is an angle many have not thought of as of yet.

If some of you remember, there ws a freelance journalist who had claimed to cast three ballots in the 2004 federal election. At the time nobody paid mind, seeing as it was just another over zealous freelancer trying to make a mark. His name was James Di Fiore. He began talking about the area of the city he lived in (Trinity-Spadina) and about the immigrant population that existed in the riding. As reported by the Star, more than 10, 000 people showed up at the polls on election day who were not on the voters lists. Many theories were exchanged. One was that the lists were terrible, causing a 35% or so discrepancy rate in that riding alone. Others said cuspers, like those near Ossington Ave. for example, were traveling to the incorrect polls on election day.

Di Fiore had a different idea, and it is gaining steam. Di Fiore believes there is a manipulated process correlating between the new immigrant population and the Liberal party of Canada. The Liberals have often been described or referred to as the party of the immigrant population. The theory is simple yet almost unimaginable - that the Liberals are influencing the less than stand-up influential membesrs of ethnic communities who are able to secure illegal votes in federal elections.

There is a home for the elderly in Chinatown, used as a polling station in every federal election, with a reputation of being a haven for out-of-riding voters made up of people who are not legally able to vote. The theory is that the generic yet unfamiliar surnames are too difficult to be spotted by elections officers. The Elections Act, however, is written in such a way, specifically Chapter 9, Section 142, subsection ii) - which staes that voters do not have to show I.D. and can instead swear an oath as their authenticity as Canadians. Di Fiore believes many immigrants are unaware they may be voting illegaly.

He tries to verify this claim by stating that Liberal incumbent, Tony Ianno, had called Di Fiore out in a press conference during the last federal election, and since that point in the campaign had faltered behind the eventual winner Olivia Chow. At the time of Ianno's request for Elections Canada to investigate, the Liberals held a slight advantage at the polls but slipped considerably until their eventual defeat on January 23rd.

Are immigrants being bamboozled by influential members of their immediate community in order to bolster support fo the Liberal Party? Many questiones still need to be answered, especially if one considers the voter's list accuracies or lackthereof combined with the high population of landed immigrants in several Canadian ridings, especially in Ontario.

What do you think?

[geoffrey]

The one thing that never has made sense to me... if these immigrants are mostly religious muslims or hindus, do you think they'd vote for a party that supports gay marriage and decriminalisation of weed? These people are supposed to be the authoritarian people in our society, hey, extreme members of their societies want to kill us because of gay marriage and real or preceived immorality.

Do you really think they'd vote Liberal? I don't even think that the CPC is right-wing enough for these people. Why are immigrant and highly muslim ridings Liberal? Doesn't really pass the sniff test in my books.

[Oddman]

The one thing that never has made sense to me... if these immigrants are mostly religious muslims or hindus, do you think they'd vote for a party that supports gay marriage and decriminalisation of weed? These people are supposed to be the authoritarian people in our society, hey, extreme members of their societies want to kill us because of gay marriage and real or preceived immorality.

Do you really think they'd vote Liberal? I don't even think that the CPC is right-wing enough for these people. Why are immigrant and highly muslim ridings Liberal? Doesn't really pass the sniff test in my books.

I don't think that by them voting Conservative it would be more accurate as to what their beliefs are. Cons seem to embrace Christianity, while voting Liberal seems to fit the mentality you are speaking of. Who cares if the Libs feel that decriminalizing weed is fine, as long as they obtain their citizienship?

[August1991]

One wacky solution (which might find favour from 'conservatives') would be to let business decide immigration numbers. They could apply for workers of whatever types they needed, and Immigration Canada would simply fill the quotas.

It's not a wacky idea on paper, but it wouldn't work in practice.

Immigration, maybe because it concerns people and their country, is as complicated as marriage and love. Immigration rules suffer from the unintended consequence. Thelonious (and Geoff), your idea would just result in many foreigners sending e-mails to Canadian companies, some honest, some bogus. Bureaucrats would run around trying to decide whether the e-mail was legitimate or not.

I happen to think that the US lottery system is best. It's random. This avoids bureaucratic investigations, delays, checks and the arbitrary decision that this business e-mail is legitimate but this other e-mail is fraudulent.

But Thelonious and Geoffrey, you miss the main questions of Canada's immigration system. What refugees should we accept? What family class immigrants? And how do we define dependants/family of the immigrants we do accept? And who should we accept into Canada, not as immigrants, but as mere visitors?

It is easy to discuss how to seek "good" immigrants. It is much harder to discuss how to refuse "bad" immigrants. By what criteria?

I think Argus is right to say that many Canadians feel silenced and cowed about all of these questions. I suspect, Thelonious and Geoff, that even you feel shy to answer honestly.

[geoffrey]

The one thing that never has made sense to me... if these immigrants are mostly religious muslims or hindus, do you think they'd vote for a party that supports gay marriage and decriminalisation of weed? These people are supposed to be the authoritarian people in our society, hey, extreme members of their societies want to kill us because of gay marriage and real or preceived immorality.

Do you really think they'd vote Liberal? I don't even think that the CPC is right-wing enough for these people. Why are immigrant and highly muslim ridings Liberal? Doesn't really pass the sniff test in my books.

I don't think that by them voting Conservative it would be more accurate as to what their beliefs are. Cons seem to embrace Christianity, while voting Liberal seems to fit the mentality you are speaking of. Who cares if the Libs feel that decriminalizing weed is fine, as long as they obtain their citizienship?

Because these people are very religious, and voting Liberal is voting for the 'infidel' by their brethren's terminology. I can't see muslims or any real religious person voting for gay marriage and decrim of pot. The CPC is unlikely to change immigration laws anyways. Your argument that the CPC is too pro-Christian is ridiculous, extremist muslims and bible-pounding Christians have many morals in common, such as being against homosexuality and abortion and recreational drugs.

[Oddman]

The one thing that never has made sense to me... if these immigrants are mostly religious muslims or hindus, do you think they'd vote for a party that supports gay marriage and decriminalisation of weed? These people are supposed to be the authoritarian people in our society, hey, extreme members of their societies want to kill us because of gay marriage and real or preceived immorality.

Do you really think they'd vote Liberal? I don't even think that the CPC is right-wing enough for these people. Why are immigrant and highly muslim ridings Liberal? Doesn't really pass the sniff test in my books.

I don't think that by them voting Conservative it would be more accurate as to what their beliefs are. Cons seem to embrace Christianity, while voting Liberal seems to fit the mentality you are speaking of. Who cares if the Libs feel that decriminalizing weed is fine, as long as they obtain their citizienship?

Because these people are very religious, and voting Liberal is voting for the 'infidel' by their brethren's terminology. I can't see muslims or any real religious person voting for gay marriage and decrim of pot. The CPC is unlikely to change immigration laws anyways. Your argument that the CPC is too pro-Christian is ridiculous, extremist muslims and bible-pounding Christians have many morals in common, such as being against homosexuality and abortion and recreational drugs.

So you believe that traditional Muslims vote with their hearts and not with their budget? Why would they even be here? And if they are terrorists, as it seems you are suggesting based on your assertion they are fundamentally on point with hard core Christians, why would they simply tip off those who would want to investigate them?

[geoffrey]

So you believe that traditional Muslims vote with their hearts and not with their budget? Why would they even be here? And if they are terrorists, as it seems you are suggesting based on your assertion they are fundamentally on point with hard core Christians, why would they simply tip off those who would want to investigate them?

I'm saying on par muslims are as devoted to their religion as Christians. And if Christians are behind the CPC, I'd assume the muslims would be as well as they share similar moral values.

[Oddman]

So you believe that traditional Muslims vote with their hearts and not with their budget? Why would they even be here? And if they are terrorists, as it seems you are suggesting based on your assertion they are fundamentally on point with hard core Christians, why would they simply tip off those who would want to investigate them?

I'm saying on par muslims are as devoted to their religion as Christians. And if Christians are behind the CPC, I'd assume the muslims would be as well as they share similar moral values.

I don't feel that makes any sense. I think that even the most fundamnetal Muslims would vote Liberal just as a statement of immigration policy. Like I said, why would they vote for a party with stricter immigration views? I see what your point is, but I don't believe it holds more weight than the alternative.

[Riverwind]

And if Christians are behind the CPC, I'd assume the muslims would be as well as they share similar moral values.

I think it is a mistake to say the Christians are behind the CPC - only certain sects of Christianity support the CPC. Catholics, for the most part, support the Liberals. United Church members often support then NDP.

I would expect you will see the same variation in among Muslims.

[August1991]

Di Fiore believes there is a manipulated process correlating between the new immigrant population and the Liberal party of Canada. The Liberals have often been described or referred to as the party of the immigrant population. The theory is simple yet almost unimaginable - that the Liberals are influencing the less than stand-up influential membesrs of ethnic communities who are able to secure illegal votes in federal elections.

....

What do you think?

Are you suggesting that we refuse immigrants to Canada because our election law is lax?

Oddman, if you feel electoral fraud is a serious issue, and non-citizens are illegally voting, and they are voting disproportionately for the federal Liberal Party, and these illegal votes are causing Liberal MPs to win when they otherwise would not, and this has changed the federal government Canadians want, then start a thread on how the electoral law should be tightened.

Changing immigration law to fix our electoral law seems to me like forbidding the sale of knives to prevent murder.

Oddman, forget about voters. Most Canadians are more concerned about their neighbours. An immigrant to Canada is going to be someone's neighbour. What neighbours should we let into Canada?

Oddman, what neighbours would you like to have?

[Oddman]

The one thing that never has made sense to me... if these immigrants are mostly religious muslims or hindus, do you think they'd vote for a party that supports gay marriage and decriminalisation of weed? These people are supposed to be the authoritarian people in our society, hey, extreme members of their societies want to kill us because of gay marriage and real or preceived immorality.

Do you really think they'd vote Liberal? I don't even think that the CPC is right-wing enough for these people. Why are immigrant and highly muslim ridings Liberal? Doesn't really pass the sniff test in my books.

I don't think that by them voting Conservative it would be more accurate as to what their beliefs are. Cons seem to embrace Christianity, while voting Liberal seems to fit the mentality you are speaking of. Who cares if the Libs feel that decriminalizing weed is fine, as long as they obtain their citizienship?

Because these people are very religious, and voting Liberal is voting for the 'infidel' by their brethren's terminology. I can't see muslims or any real religious person voting for gay marriage and decrim of pot. The CPC is unlikely to change immigration laws anyways. Your argument that the CPC is too pro-Christian is ridiculous, extremist muslims and bible-pounding Christians have many morals in common, such as being against homosexuality and abortion and recreational drugs.

Then when they are in their country of origin they would consider this: Do I go to a place where I vote for the party that shows a glimpse of my strict beliefs, or do I vote for the party that will let me stay in the country I am about to move to?

I think you are taking the fundamental view to a point where it wouldn't sustain itself. They are just like you and me, meaning they likely vote with their wallet and not their Q'uaran. I know plenty of people who vote Conservative, and most of then vote that way becaue of their tax bracket.

Maybe you are putting too much stock in the radical vote when theyprobably vote for less findamental reasons. They can still believe/practice whatever they want no matter who they vote for.

[August1991]

Error.

[betsy]

And if Christians are behind the CPC, I'd assume the muslims would be as well as they share similar moral values.

I think it is a mistake to say the Christians are behind the CPC - only certain sects of Christianity support the CPC. Catholics, for the most part, support the Liberals. United Church members often support then NDP.

I would expect you will see the same variation in among Muslims.

I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of immigrants are Liberal supporters. It is not only that they view the Liberals as having a lax immigration agenda. But more so, they perceive the Conservatives as anti-immigrants and racists. That was how the Conservative Party was described to me by a well-meaning immigrant from another ethnic group trying to educate me when I had just arrived in this country. On the other hand, the Liberal Party was endorsed as a "friend of the immigrants."

[betsy]

I honestly think that the immigration policy must be over-hauled to be able to handle the new kind of problems.

And the first step is to temporarily FREEZE the borders so we can effectively do an "inventory", take stock and properly process those who are already in-line. The experts can come up with an alternative plan in the meantime...and make all the necessary preparations for the new guidelines.

[Minimus Maximus]

Instead, I think family should be restricted to spouse and kids under 18 - that's it. Family class should not include parents or anyone else. This breaks the cornerstone of the 1976 law (family reunification) but so what.

August, I disagree with this statement.

Looking at this from a western perspective where our elderly simply fade into the background it would make sense to only allow spouse and kids under 18, but in many immigrant populations the elderly are very important to family life.

What I'm trying to say is that in immigrant populations the elderly create stability at home so that the young can go out and work. I think restricting immigration in such a way would be to the detriment of immigrants and ultimately the detriment of Canadian society as a whole.

Growing up in a part of Calgary with a large Sikh population I noticed early on that the grandparents played a much more prominent role in family than we are used to seeing in western society. Without the elderly we would see more Sikh children in need of daycare and more Sikh families in need of social programs.